Lardis v Lakis

The appeal concerned a dispute over a residential property in Sydney, where the husband, Mr. Lardis, had transferred a 49% interest to his wife, Ms. Lakis, for a stated nominal consideration. The appellant, Mr. Lardis, sought to set aside this disposition, alleging it was voidable under section 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) due to an alleged intent to defraud creditors. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether there was sufficient evidence to justify a finding that Mr. Lardis had the requisite intent to defraud creditors at the time of the transfer, and whether the primary judge had erred in rejecting certain evidence presented by Mr. Lardis, particularly in light of the rule in *Browne v Dunn*. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the cross-examination of Ms. Lakis adequately challenged the accuracy and reliability of her evidence regarding the circumstances of the transfer.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge was entitled to reject the evidence of Mr. Lardis. The court held that the cross-examination of Ms. Lakis did not sufficiently challenge her credibility as distinct from the reliability of her evidence, and therefore, the rule in *Browne v Dunn* did not preclude the primary judge from accepting her version of events. Furthermore, the court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Lardis had the motive to defraud creditors at the time of the transfer, meaning the requirements of section 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) were not met.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.